One month later received rejection with a low quality review. The editor rejected it though. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment. Very fast rounds with very insightful and reasonable referee reports and suggestions by the editor. Really good experience, good comments and moved quickly through the process. Very reputable journal with fast response policy which is good for authors: desk rejection in weeks, referee rejection in 2-3 months (usually). Boston University Department of Economics. Some good comments from referees, overall a good experience. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline. Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection. Assistant Professor, Macroeconomics. Two reviews - one very positive, and one that was clearly from someone outside of the field that was not familiar with the methods or the literature. STAY AWAY from this journal! The referee seems like a first year PhD student who struggled with the notion of left tails. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with. I got two very different referee reports, one was very critical but absolutely low quality. From the comments it could have been an R&R, at least the referee and editor comments were helpful and will help to improve the paper, Though it is rejcted, I want to express my thankness to the refreee, who provdes a exremly high quality report. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. Desk reject within two weeks. Some interesting comments, but not much. No indication that the paper was read. Long process but well worth it! 2nd bad experience for me with this journal. 2 was more critical. Extensive delay for referee reports apparently due to unresponsive referee. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article. 2 referee reports: 1 so-so and 1 extremely shitty. 1 positive and 1 negative report. Do not waste your time with this journal. Quick rejection. Though nothing extremely deep, comments were of acceptable quality. Reviewer number two said the paper had no relevant contribution beyond those of a paper recently published in a top journal. Sounded like the referees couldn't let go off other papers' methodologies. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics. No comment from the editor,ridiculous journal. Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports. Overall, good experience. 12 months and waiting. also received comments from the old reviewer that were better than the first review. Desk reject within 5 days. Revised carefully and resent, then they sent to another editor and another reviewer whose report contradicted the first and was very vague. Good experience. Referees lukewarm, Foster took time and effort to explain his decision, also indicated a number of pathways to strengthen the paper. Got 3 ref reports - 1 RR 2 reject. Helped improve the paper and get it into a lower journal. I? The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. instantaneous rejection, however, without any comments, 5 Weeks for a desk reject without comments. Helpful comments received from reviewers. The editor's comments were no less helpful and extensive as referees' reports. 3 rounds then rejected by editor, paper was improved by addressing reviewers' comments, eventually accepted at RFS, Cam Harvey gave useless report; obvious outgoing editor is obvious. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. Useful comments from the editor who had to stand in for the unresponsive second referee. Two days to desk reject, no comments, just boilerplate. The assigned editor did not reply to emails about progress until I contacted the Editoral Manager. A bit slow but overall a good experience. Recommended. However, it was relatively fast at least. Waited for almost a year and sent a couple of emails to the editor; promised us a response in two weeks. But the discipline should find another way. According to him one referee is in favor but the other is not. One excellent report, one mediocre report. Contacted them, told me they will try to send it out to reviewers. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days. Not very helpful reports. Useful reports, pleasant experience overall. No comments at all from editor other than generic stuff. It's going to be most accurate for economics, political science, public policy & other professional schools. If you want a fair treatment - stay away from this journal. Awful experience. Nice process and outcome. Accepted after two rounds of revisions. Referees mixed. Not a r, Contribution: Single country Sample and OLS production, International Review of Law and Economics, very helpful comments which improved the quality of the paper; time between resubmit and acceptance: 6 days! The editor did not read the paper and just sided with the hostile referee. REHO is a scam, not a journal. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. Not a great experience. 1 useless report, and second was useful report. The latter may be fine but it is clear that the referee did not read the paper very carefully. Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. The other one, who wanted extra revises, was a bit of stupid. Took some time due to lots of things to revise, but all the requests were fair. Less than 2 months for the decision with 2 reports, which is very quick. -- Divided referee reports. So unprofessional and shameful. Receive desk rejection in 24 hours, editor read the paper and suggested to top field journal. Based on the large volume of submissions we receive bla bla, Unfathomably long time to first decision, referee comments impleid the paper was not read diligently, despite being just 4-5 pages. The reason given was something along the lines of well we can't read everything. Desk reject after 27 days by Kurt Mitman. Accepted 4 days after resub. Quick with two very good reports and a detailed decision letter from the editor. Within a week with no justification. I will never submit to this journal. Do not send your papers to this journal. The site, commonly known as econjobrumors.com (its full name is Economics Job Market Rumors), began as a place for economists to exchange gossip about who is hiring and being hired in the . After one round of revision, two of the three reviewers accepted the paper and one requested at best minor revision. Contribution was an application of a specific method to an interesting case, referees made it a methodical paper by asking for a series of many different methods, As they claim to be able to give a first response within 8 weeks, I was a bit disappointed to recive it after 6 months. Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING. Really smooth process. Split recommendations, editor decided to reject which is fair enough. One ref report with extremely constructive criticisms. 3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal. It took 6 months a referee to look at the paper and decide that it does not make enough contribution to be published in this journal (very smart idea). Two reports, both harsh and recommended reject. Placement Administrator: Stephanie Burbank 650-725-6198 sburbank@stanford.edu. Withdrew article from consideration after 18 months of wait. Worst experience ever nearly one year just to hear "not much new, therefore reject" 100 bucks for nothing. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea. it ?could ?be ?the ?case ?that ?I ?have? Desk rejected in 2 days with a very short report "better fit for a finance journal". Later saw a similar paper to be published with less data work. Editor rejected. Last of many bad experiences with this journal. My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper. 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. 3 reports. Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Form letter from the editor. Ali Kutan is the associate editor, finally accepted the paper. No negative comments from referees on the substance, but one referee just didn't like it. Editor was Mogde. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. Very pleasant process. Desk rejection (standard email). Excellent communication with editor. Ok referee reports. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending). Acceted as is; not a single change requested. Recommend. Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. True, no time wasted, just the $125 submission fee. 2 months for a generic desk rejection with no comment whatsoever.. but of course I am not in the club. Poor / no justification for decision. desk reject in 2.5 hrs? After ref rejection at an AEJ submitted here we followed editors suggestion and submitted to JUE. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Editor wrote report himself. Two rounds of R&R. Worthless garbage report, no redeeming value. Good feedback from AE too. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. Useless reports. Awaiting Referee Selection for 4 months! Great experience; precise and informed referee report; 1st round for major improvements, 2nd round pretty much converged to acceptance. In all the rejection was fair. Very quick response from Editor (Otrok) after revision. Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist, Referees did not put much efforts. At least it was fast I guess. Desk rejection in one day by Giovanni Perri. Both referees caught the major issue in the paper and offered great suggestions for moving forward. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. But editor is very good, One referee report with no constructive comments. Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). Fast response. Paper was a letter. Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable. Unfair decision. Desk rejected in 10 days because the editor wasn't a fan of the data. Editors reject the paper. Failed to notify me of rejection. 2010 . Worst experience with a paper submission ever. One good referee report. Kohlhase). You received a high fee, you explain at least one sentence about your decision making. Very constructive comments from Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) and referees. Otherwise fine. nice experience. Quick with two decent reports. Finance Job Rumors (488,736) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,359) Micro Job Rumors (15,223) Macro Job Rumors (9,790) European Job Market (100,917) China Job Market (103,439) Industry Rumors (40,300) Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. Job Market. Under one month for one very brief report saying not good enough for the journal and a completely indecipherable AE report. Very tough journal with very extensive comments from 3 refs. Ref #1 created new issues after I addressed his first round. One of them was very detailed. 14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers. Two referee reports. 8 Days to get a desk reject. Complained. Referees didn't read the article properly! There is no option to choose 'Referees Accepted' but 'Editor Rejected'. One very detailed and helpful report ; Second report very short and quite destructive. But 10 months is too long. they should have desk rejected, AE told me: you should not be surprised that IER typically does not appreciate this kind of work.. they wasted my time. Submitted the paper 11:45. It details the following: Preparing to go on the job market. Could have been more lucky with referees, but at least it was very efficient. Liran Einav 650-723-3704 leinav@stanford.edu. Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel". Of course we don't like the reports, or editor's comments, but there is some helpful stuff. Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. Reviews were not particularly helpful. Rejected for arbitrary reasons. Seriously, avoid this journal. Four refereed. Charging for this should be a crime. Finance Job Rumors (489,486) General Economics Job Market Discussion (729,772) Micro Job Rumors (15,235) Macro Job Rumors (9,803) European Job Market (101,012) China Job Market (103,527) Industry Rumors (40,348) Two useful reports (one with detailed but helpful suggestions), good editor. Process ended after 1 report. Fast. Two reports that are quite detailed. Decent reports, rejecting for fair reasons. Liked the paper but contribution too small. 1 report ok, the other one awful, Referee clearly did not understand the paper. The referee did not read the first sentence of the paper and was not familiar with the literature. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little. Total waste of time. 2 reports + report from AE which is a lot better than referee reports. This is a wiki for tracking searches in various categories for academic (i.e. Good referee reports. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. Upon inspection these papers are only superficially related. Unfortunately the paper is rejected but I hope the reports help you improve the paper for another journal. Editor claimed an expert in the field reviewed the paper while the referee admitted in his first sentence of the report that he is not. Referees didn't get the point of the paper, my fault. Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor. Good experience in general, the editor recommended a field journal. Very long (2 years), costly, inconsistent, unprofessional process. The literature review was complete! 8 months after submission, an in-depth and articulated referee report with many comments. Recommend. Strongly recommend submitting there. I guess I had the luck of being assigned to two business school types with absolutely no idea of the literature that my model belonged to.
Oxford Mail Scales Of Justice January 2020,
Ir A Un Registro Especifico En Access Vba,
Nfl Players From John Burroughs High School,
Articles E